This
matter is before the court on Plaintiff Mark Picozzi's
Motion to Compel Visit Logs / Video (ECF No. 68), Motion for
Copy of Deposition (ECF No. 69), Motion to Order Discovery
(ECF No. 90), and Motion for Deposition Upon Written
Questions (ECF No. 93). These Motions are referred to the
undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and LR
IB 1-3 of the Local Rules of Practice.

Mr.
Picozzi is a pro se prisoner in the custody of the
Nevada Department of Corrections who is proceeding in
forma pauperis (“IFP”). See IFP
Application (ECF No. 3); Screening Order (ECF No. 15). This
case arises from Picozzi's allegations, pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1983, regarding his treatment while he was
incarcerated at the Clark County Detention Center
(“CCDC”). Upon review of the Amended Complaint
(ECF No. 14), the court found that Picozzi stated plausible
claims against 13 defendants: Sergeant Judd, Officers
Hightower, Daos, Goins, Hans, Brooks, Phillips, Carr, Razzo,
Jolley, Coker, Garcia, and Nurse Amanda
Vertner.[1]See Screening Order (ECF No. 15).

On June
1, 2016, the court entered a Scheduling Order (ECF No. 28) as
to defendants Coker, Daos, Goins, Hightower, Judd, and
Phillips (the “CCDC defendants”) setting various
discovery and motion deadlines. The parties later requested
an extension of the discovery deadlines. The court found good
cause to extend the deadlines stated in the Scheduling Order
by 90 days: “(1) discovery in this action shall be
completed on January 30, 2017; (2) discovery motions shall be
filed and served no later than February 13,
2017….” Oct. 31, 2016 Order (ECF No.
52).[2]

I.
Motion to Compel Visit Logs / Video (ECF No. 68)

This
motion, filed March 27, 2017, asks the court to compel CCDC
to provide the sign-in sheets, log books, visit logs, and
video of a visit CCDC said he received on April 29, 2014. The
Response (ECF No. 75) argues that Picozzi's motion fails
to include a certification that he has conferred or attempted
to confer in good faith with other affected parties in an
effort to resolve the dispute without court action. In his
Reply (ECF No. 79), Picozzi asserts that he has repeatedly
asked for the video to be saved in discovery requests and
grievances.

Picozzi's
motion is denied for multiple reasons. First, the motion is
untimely. The Scheduling Order required that the parties file
any discovery motions no later than February 13, 2017. The
motion was filed on March 27, 2017, and provides no
explanation for why it was not filed on time. Second, the
motion does not provide a copy of his requests for production
or the CCDC defendants response to his requests as required
by Local Rule 26-7(b) (“All motions to compel discovery
or for a protective order must set forth in full the text of
the discovery originally sought and any response to
it.”). The purpose of that rule is to enable the court
to determine whether the discovery requests and/or the
responses are appropriate and comply with the discovery
rules. The court cannot make this determination without
seeing the original requests and the responses.

Finally,
as the Response points out, the motion does not show that
Picozzi met and conferred in good faith with the CCDC
defendants or attempted to do so as required by LR 26- 7(c)
and Rule 37(a)(2)(B) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.[3] Where one of the parties is a prisoner,
the court does not require in-person meetings and allows the
parties to meet and confer by telephone or by exchanging
letters, which a party may then attach to his motion.
Although the format of the meet-and-confer process changes,
the substantive requirement remains the same- namely, the
parties must engage in a good faith effort to meet and confer
to resolve discovery disputes before seeking court
intervention. For these reasons, the motion is denied.

II.
Motion for Copy of Deposition

In this
motion, Picozzi asks the court to reconsider its Order (ECF
No. 66) denying his first motion (ECF No. 56) requesting a
copy of his deposition transcript. The court has considered
the CCDC defendants' Response (ECF No. 76) and
Picozzi's Reply (ECF No. 80). For the reasons stated in
the court's original order, the request for
reconsideration is denied.

III.
Motion to Order Discovery (ECF No. 90)

Picozzi's
motion, filed July 19, 2017, argues that counsel for the CCDC
defendants is refusing to turn over discovery or respond to
depositions he submitted to the new defendants who were
recently served. Attached to his motion are letters addressed
to counsel for the CCDC defendants, dated May 31, 2016, and
the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department Risk Management
Division, dated May 1, 2014, and March 3, 2015. The letters
each request preservation of video of the alleged incident
that is the subject of this lawsuit. The letter to counsel
also contains other discovery requests. In their Response
(ECF No. 91), the CCDC defendants note that Picozzi is moving
in part for the same relief he requested in the previous
motion to compel (ECF No. 68), to which they already
responded. See ECF No. 75. Additionally, the CCDC
defendants claim that the letters are not genuine and he
produced them “now, ostensibly, to support a claim that
Defendants intentionally destroyed video evidence that
Picozzi will likely claim would have been helpful to his
case.” Response (ECF No. 91) at 2. The CCDC defendants
also refer to their recent Notice (ECF No. 88) in which they
describe how Mr. Picozzi ignored the court's Order (ECF
No. 72) to meet and confer regarding the remaining discovery
for the new defendants. In his Reply (ECF No. 92), Picozzi
denies fabricating the letters and argues that his legal mail
was repeatedly tampered with while he was incarcerated at
CCDC.

This
motion is also untimely as it was filed almost four months
after the deadline for discovery motions. Picozzi asks the
court to please look at all the exhibits submitted. The court
has done so. His letter requests are not requests for
production of documents or tangible things. Such requests are
made and served pursuant to Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure. A motion to compel may be filed only when a
request has been made, the opposing party or parties have
failed to respond or responded in a manner the requesting
party finds insufficient and the requesting party engages in
a good faith effort to resolve the matter with the other side
without court intervention. Mr. Picozzi does not attempt to
explain why he has not complied with the scheduling order.
Assuming that the letters were sent to opposing counsel in
2014, 2015, and 2016 as Picozzi claims, that still does not
explain why he failed to timely file his motion by the
February 2017 deadline, especially since he has filed many
other motions.[4]

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;With
regard to Mr. Picozzi&#39;s deposition requests for the new
defendants, the motion is premature. Discovery with the newly
served defendants does not begin until the defendants have
appeared by filing an answer or other responsive pleading,
and the parties have met and conferred and submitted a
proposed discovery plan and scheduling order which the court
approves. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26. It is for this
precise reason that the court ordered the parties to meet and
confer regarding whether Mr. Picozzi and/or the new
defendants will require discovery once the new defendants
answered or otherwise appeared. See Apr. 6, 2017
Order (ECF No. 72). The CCDC defendants informed the court
that Picozzi refused to do so until his existing discovery
motions were resolved. See Notice (ECF No. 88). In a
separate ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.